Wikipedia:Third opinion

This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project.

"WP:3" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta.

Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.

This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.

How to list a dispute

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

1. Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
2. Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
3. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Example entry:

# [[Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up]]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~

Example displayed:

1. Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here.

1. Continuing issues between User:U-Mos and User:Arcayne. Seen in Talk:Silence in the Library (sections 21-25), Talk:Forest of the Dead#Edit warring, User talk:U-Mos#When reverted, User talk:Arcayne#Forest of the Dead and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections. Previously reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Forest of the Dead - disruptive user? and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arcayne, where it was suggested that here would be a better place. 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Talk:Uppsala University#Math Dept Resignation controversy and User talk:Nsk92#Uppsala University. Disagreement is about appropriateness, neutrality, and balance of Uppsala University#The 2007 resignation controversy section. 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Talk:Solkope#Recent_edit_wars_between_Davidpdx_.26_Mattbray Disagreement about neutrality of Mattbray's edits to Solkope, accusations of biased Dominion of Melchizedek endorsement through comment. NB: There is some convoluted history to Davidpdx's involvement with the page. This is not so with Mattbray 09:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.
• Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} in a new section on the talk page of the article.
• For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.
• When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort. If the article has a {{3O}} tag, also remember to remove it from the article page.